Wikipedia talk:Petitions are considered harmful

I agree
I agree fully, and suggest a RFC on this issue at the IAR petition page, or the flagged revision page. As every persons does: I simply want consistency, and fair dealing. If one petition is allowed to do something, so should the other. Ikip 16:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible rename?
How about: Petitions are harmful when you disagree with it --Cube lurker (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The very fact that there is an issue which someone felt the need to start a petition on suggests there is disagreement. If everyone agreed, there would be no need for the petition.  Right?  So why would you suppose that disagreement would not be a concern?  I'm assuming you can envision things that you might disagree with.  Disagreement is good; it helps identify problems.  Without that, there can be no progress.  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 00:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The counterpoint
Going by the current version of the page petitions become the rational wikipedia responce when discussion and consensus breaks down and the group doing or not doing something cannot be delt with through the usual dispute resolution mechanism.©Geni 19:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * you know, they could have avoided all of this by simply hosting the petition on someone's user page. Ikip 19:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ikip: I don't think that would have made a difference. User space is not a free-for-all.  Rules still apply — even WP:OWN — see WP:UP.  Controversy can be generated on a user page just as easily as any place else, and the concerns I'm raising would be the same.  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 00:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Geni: If discussion and consensus have broken down, how will a petition help? Those are fundamental principles, one of the Five Pillars. From that principle derives the policy that sheer numbers have no meaning on Wikipedia. The only "appeal" I can see would be to someone who is upset that discussion/consensus didn't go their way, and wants to stir up a lot of signatures so they can point to that and say, "See! Lots of people agree with me!" But again, that's not how things work here. If 99 out of 100 people say we should toss out WP:Verifiability, they're still not going to get their way. So I don't see any benefit. Meanwhile, encouraging discussion might actually get disagreeing parties to move closer to agreement or understanding -- a one-sided poll isn't going to do that, it's just a number. At least, that's my take. How would you see things working differently?  (I'll try to work this into the essay, once I understand your POV better.) — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 00:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If discussion and consensus has broken it usualy means that one side is trying to present a fait accompli. Sure this can be delt with through throwing around admin powers until arbcom is forced to address the wheel war but this is considerd an unpopular approach. Petitions provide an alturnative in that they can show that there are enough people that dissagree with what is being done that you cannot credibly claim consensus or that there is no legitimate opposition. Thus there is no legitimate way to refuse to return discussion. If that isn't enough to get the side attempting a fait accompli to return to discussion and consensus then as a last resort it can act as a show of force. You cannot force through X because there are enough people to stop you.©Geni 01:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In terms of petitioning the foundation that is usualy because the foundation seems to think that the objections to whatever it is doing or not doing are the ususal suspects and there is a need to demonstrait wider support.©Geni 01:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have incorporated some of these arguments in to the counter-argument essay, Petitions are considered non-harmful. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Related Discussion

 * FYI: Village pump (proposals) — V = I * R (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 22:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Rename
Page should be either "Petitions are considered harmful" or "Petitions are harmful". The current name makes it sound like this page is a list of petitions that are considered harmful (c.f. Reduced relative clause). r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 16:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The name is deliberate. The "are" before "considered" is implied.  See considered harmful -- it's a "journalistic cliché" dating back to at least 1949, and very common in computer and engineering fields.  I honestly thought it would be recognized, or at least understood.  :)  But you're the second person to say this is an issue, which has me concerned.  I guess it should be renamed.  Petitions are considered harmful would be my preference; at least people who know considered harmful would still recognize it, then.  :)  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 00:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Another option would be WP:Petitioning considered harmful. But the bottom line is, even if the title contains a good joke, it's ambiguous and gives people the wrong expectations about what the page contains (at least, it did to me). r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 00:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree that clarity needs to be the overriding concern. But if you think WP:Petitioning considered harmful would clear that up, I think that's a best-of-both-worlds situation.  If not, I'll accept any of the other alternatives put forward.  I really don't care that much.  :)  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose the only issue with that title is that "petitioning" sometimes has a slightly different connotation than "petition", but I don't know how much of a problem that would be. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 06:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)